The web version here detailing Judge Janice Wilson’s ruling jailing Bill Sizemore on contempt charges doesn’t do justice to Oregon Public Broadcasting audio of Judge Wilson’s rulings.

Mr. Sizemore is the well-known racketeer who seems to have chosen a battle of wills with Judge Wilson. I don’t know whether Mr. Sizemore underestimated Judge Wilson’s resolve, or whether this is calculated as a form of protest. Regardless, he’s out of his league in choosing this battle with Judge Wilson. She’s among the brightest on the bench and as tough as any judge in this state.

I’m not privy to the details of this case. I’m not inclined to be the least bit sympathetic toward Bill Sizemore, as his reign of racketeering has done great harm to this state.  So I have to admit to laughing when I heard the report. I recognize that my reaction is very wrong.  But I’m sure that part of it was due to my first hand experience in both winning and losing in front of Judge Wilson. Like I say, she’s tough.

I take issue with one thing in the OPB report. It describes Mr. Sizemore as the “anti-tax” activist. True, he cut teeth circulating tax related initiatives. But he’s also gone after land use rules, political contributions, unions, trial lawyers, building code enforcement, bilingual education, and whatever else his patrons will fund.

If memory serves, he got completely skunked at the ballot box in the last round of elections. And now it appears that he’s thumbing his nose at the court. It’s nice to see that Judge Wilson is taking seriously her oath of office. It would be easy to duck from taking on Mr. Sizemore’s misconduct for fear of angering his constituents. Score another for judicial integrity, as Judge Wilson did not shirk her responsibilities to the justice system.

Update: More comprehensive story here. For those who may claim that Judge Wilson is “biased” the Oregonian story notes that she also criticized the unions for using the contempt hearing for political advantage.

David Sugerman

This curious case of the nude cyclist charged with public indecency may draw some heat. Judge Jerome LaBarre was the lucky (ha!) trial judge who drew this case.  Judge LaBarre reportedly ruled that 21-year old Bobby Hammond’s nude bike ride was protected speech and thus not punishable.

There may be a lot of ranting about this case. We’re going to hear about “activist judges.” Wouldn’t surprise me if some outraged citizens even targeted Judge LaBarre for ouster when he is up for re-election. It doesn’t help that young Mr. Hammond hardly sounds like a deep political protester.

Several things that are important and not widely understood. First, the Oregon Constitution’s guarantee on free expression is stricter that the free speech clause found in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.  In Oregon, for example, the State constitution protects nude dancing as free expression. The judge’s task in this setting is to interpret the facts and apply the law. When we’re talking about constitutional rights like free speech, sometimes the results won’t be pretty to all.

The other thing is that regardless of Mr. Hammond’s lack of articulation in the linked radio interview, the Portlland-area bike community has actively “spoken” or protested on bikes for years. This includes annoying rides that tie up traffic. (”Annoying” is defined as something that bothers me, a middle aged guy who drives, walks and cycles.) The nude rides have also been part of the general protests against car culture.

But the most important thing about all this is that Judge LaBarre did exactly what any principled judge should do. He made a ruling based upon constitutional interpretation that is firmly imbedded in the history and text of the Oregon constitution. It is critcally important that we recognize and honor judges’ independence, even when we don’t agree with them. Because a judge who makes decisions based on political whims is a real danger to our society.

So yeah, on one level, this is another case for the “Keep Portland Weird” advocates and those compilers of zany court cases. But looking deeper, this is case that validates the power of the Oregon constitution and judicial independence. And while I’m not interested in having my family subjected to nude cyclists, it’s the right result.

David Sugerman

Allan cuts my hair and has for years. Nice guy. He does a good job, considering what he has to work with. We invariably talk about things trivial and weighty, and while we’re different politically and socially, we share wicked senses of humor and fundamental respect for differences.

So Allan and I fell to talking about the presidential contest. I’ll probably misquote him, but the dialogue went something like this:

“I’m a life-long Republican,” he volunteered,  “Still have to admit that I would enjoy the hell out of watching a black couple walk into the white house, ” he added.

“Through the front door?” I asked.  “And not even wearing uniforms?” I deadpanned.

We both broke into laughter. I suppose some would label the exchange inappropriate, politically incorrect, or–worst of all–sophomoric.  Still it was a great moment.

See, we’re both old enough to know that this is something that is profoundly different.

I have to say that I wept last night watching Senator Obama’s acceptance speech.  Don’t misunderstand me. This isn’t about the candidate. Truth is that I have questions about his candidacy.  I don’t share a number of his views and poisitions.

Nope, it’s about us.

Even though I am only middle-aged, I have lived from the days of lingering Jim Crow laws, of Dr. King, of the civil rights murders and lynchings through to this day when an energetic, accomplished and brilliant African American family may occupy the White House.  I cried last night because it says that for all of our flaws and warts and starts and stops that we have made progress as a people.

This isn’t meant as paean or love letter to Senator Obama.  It is instead a joyous note to mark a moment of American progress.  It’s American progress that is fundamental and true regardless of who we support and what we believe.  No matter the outcome of this election, we are changed as a people, I think, by these times. That is worth an outpouring of tears of joy.

David Sugerman

Fair to assume that a number of employers sat up and took notice of these whopping big EEOC settlements finalized in U.S. District Court here in Oregon. The Oregonian news report suggests that Video Only was ordered by Judge King to pay a total of $630,000 on the two claims and the EEOC’s enforcement action. Not clear whether this was a private settlement, a consent decree or an actual decision.

According to the report, two employees–one Hispanic and the other African American, with a Jewish family–endured repeated racial, ethnic and religious slurs. Store management participated in the repeated misconduct. To add insult to injury, the news article reports that after receiving their complaints, Video Only hired an investigator to attempt to discredit the two men.

Here’s how the EEOC described the situation: “Our investigation discovered harassment that engaged in the worst stereotypes and slurs about blacks, Latinos and Jews, and that upper management actively participated in this behavior,” said Mike Baldonado, the EEOC’s acting district director. “The settlement should send a strong message that harassment based on race, national origin and religion has no place in the workplace.”

The news report also explains that the $500,000 of the $630,000 will be awarded to the two victims, and the balance will be paid to two co-workers who apparently suffered retaliation for supporting the complaints.

The size of the settlement should send a message to Oregon employers that management-led discrimination is going to result in a rather expensive slap down. That’s a good thing.

For my part, I can imagine that the men who took this on had a terribly difficult course at work and then–after blowing the whistle–likely had things get worse before they got better.

I’ve learned from clients over the years that blowing the whistle on employment discrimination is tough, especially when it is wide-spread and when it involves race, religion or sexual harassment. To my way of thinking, these four employees who said no deserve our thanks. By facing the monster, they made the workplace better for the rest of us. The other thing is that they’ve taught their children that sometimes we have to do hard things. Heroic.

David Sugerman

Catching up some more…can one blogger ever go on vacation?! Here’s a neat piece from the Oregon Supreme Court on Bill Sizemore, racketeer.  It’s a court opinion, so a lot of it is in legalese. But there are sections worth lifting from Justice Balmer’s opinion for the unanimous court:

“A jury found that defendants–a political action committee and a nonprofit corporation controlled by the same individuals–engaged with others in a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in ORICO, by forging signatures to qualify two ballot measures for the 2000 general election and by filing false statements with the state from 1998 through 2000 concerning their expenditures and contributions. The jury also found that defendants’ illegal conduct injured plaintiffs–two labor organizations–that spent substantial amounts of money opposing the ballot measures. The jury determined that plaintiffs had suffered damages of approximately $840,000….”

The Court goes on to explain that a jury found that an enterprise that included Bill Sizemore engaged in racketeering. Mr. Sizemore–for those who don’t know–makes a living submitting poorly written and confusing initiatives to Oregon voters.  Turns out he does this by way of fraud and forgery.

As the Court explained, Sizemore’s group, Oregon Taxpayers United and the rest of the defendants, did not, “challenge the jury’s findings that they did, in fact, forge sponsorship and petition signatures or that OTU-EF submitted false reports to the Attorney General regarding its charitable activities.” Instead, the defendants made a number of technical arguments that the Oregon Supreme Court rejected.

So maybe now Bill Sizemore, Racketeer, becomes the name rightfully attached to all these horrible-idea initiatives. For years, I’ve had a sense that some people were using the Oregon initative process in inappropriate ways. But it’s only as a result of this case that I’ve come to understand that Oregonians are being played by a bunch of corrupt racketeers who are intent on hijacking our initiative system.  There ought to be a law.

Kudos to the people who pursued this case and shined a light on Bill Sizemore, Racketeer. The legal team handling the challenge includes a number of friends who should be proud of their great work for Oregonians. Two of the lawyers, Mike Morris and Gene Mechanic, are old friends who do top-flight work.  It’s particularly gratifying to see that they nailed Bill Sizemore, Racketeer. Maybe this is a lesson to Bill Sizemore, Racketeer that his days of pushing his corrupt agenda on us are coming to a close.

You can be a part of saying no more to Bill Sizemore, Racketeer.  Next time you see a petitioner circulating one of those initiative petitions, be sure to ask whether Bill Sizemore, Racketeer is involved.  And if he is, tell them that we don’t do business with Bill Sizemore, Racketeer.  And then don’t sign. Because I imagine that you agree that there’s no place in Oregon for Bill Sizemore, Racketeer.

David Sugerman

Must be the summer heat, but today’s news annoys me to no end. Congress gave in to the Bush White House by providing it the coveted immunity to phone companies that participated in illegal wiretapping. Gutless surrender monkeys.

I’m particularly annoyed by Senator Obama’s vote with the majority. As a former constitutional law professor, he knows better. Guess he couldn’t stand up to the FOX news critique if he stood for civil liberties and protection of privacy.

I don’t know about you, but I get pretty nervous when we make it easier for the government to spy on its own citizens. Seems like it’s a quick few steps from there to really bad news. If you have doubts about the importance of civil liberties, consider the case of Brandon Mayfield, a gentle soul who was caught in the horror-net of the Patriot Act when investigators mistakenly interpreted fingerprints left at the site of the Madrid train bombing.

I know, I know. Al Queda presents a very real threat. I’m not being snarky. Daniel Perl’s horrible death and 9/11 and Madrid trains were very real terror events. But the specter of terrorist attack can’t give the government license to spy us, to torture our prisoners, and to lie about weapons of mass destruction.

Immunity means that no jury will ever consider what these people have done. No one will ever have to explain. Immunity leaves the actors free to do whatever they choose. And that is a very scary thought.

David Sugerman